The Astrophysical Journal
, 728:117 (20pp), 2011 February 20
C 2011. The American Astronomical Society. All rights reserved. Printed in the U.S.A.
doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/728/2/117
William J. Borucki
1
, David G. Koch
1
, Gibor Basri
2
, Natalie Batalha
3
, Alan Boss
4
, Timothy M. Brown
5
,
Douglas Caldwell
6
, Jørgen Christensen-Dalsgaard
7
, William D. Cochran
8
, Edna DeVore
6
, Edward W. Dunham
9
,
Andrea K. Dupree
10
, Thomas N. Gautier III
11
, John C. Geary
10
, Ronald Gilliland
12
, Alan Gould
13
, Steve B. Howell
14
,
Jon M. Jenkins
6
, Hans Kjeldsen
7
, David W. Latham
10
, Jack J. Lissauer
1
, Geoffrey W. Marcy
2
, David G. Monet
15
,
Dimitar Sasselov
10
, Jill Tarter
6
, David Charbonneau
10
, Laurance Doyle
6
, Eric B. Ford
16
, Jonathan Fortney
17
,
Matthew J. Holman
10
, Sara Seager
18
, Jason H. Steffen
19
, William F. Welsh
20
, Christopher Allen
21
, Stephen
T. Bryson
1
, Lars Buchhave
10
, Hema Chandrasekaran
6
, Jessie L. Christiansen
6
, David Ciardi
22
, Bruce D. Clarke
6
,
Jessie L. Dotson
1
, Michael Endl
8
, Debra Fischer
23
, Francois Fressin
10
, Michael Haas
1
, Elliott Horch
24
,
Andrew Howard
2
, Howard Isaacson
2
, Jeffery Kolodziejczak
25
, Jie Li
6
, Phillip MacQueen
8
, Søren Meibom
10
,
Andrej Prsa
26
, Elisa V. Quintana
6
, Jason Rowe
1
, William Sherry
14
, Peter Tenenbaum
6
, Guillermo Torres
10
,
Joseph D. Twicken
6
, Jeffrey Van Cleve
6
, Lucianne Walkowicz
2
, and Hayley Wu
6
1
NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA 94035, USA; William.J.Borucki@nasa.gov
2
University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA
3
San Jose State University, San Jose, CA 95192, USA
4
Carnegie Institute of Washington, Washington, DC 20015, USA
5
Las Cumbres Observatory Global Telescope, Goleta, CA 93117, USA
6
SETI Institute, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA
7
Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
8
McDonald Observatory, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712, USA
9
Lowell Observatory, Flagstaff, AZ 86001, USA
10
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA
11
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91109, USA
12
Space Telescope Science Institute, Baltimore, MD 21218, USA
13
Lawrence Hall of Science, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA
14
NOAO, Tucson, AZ 85719, USA
22
15
United States Naval Observatory, Flagstaff, AZ 86001, USA
16
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA
17
University of California, Santa Cruz, CA 95064, USA
18
MIT, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA
19
Fermilab, Batavia, IL 60510, USA
20
San Diego State University, San Diego, CA 92182, USA
21
Orbital Sciences Corp., Mountain View, CA 94043, USA
Exoplanet Science Institute / Caltech, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA
23
Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520, USA
24
Southern Connecticut State University, New Haven, CT 06515, USA
25
MSFC, Huntsville, AL 35805, USA
26
Villanova University, Villanova, PA 19085, USA
Received 2010 July 21; accepted 2010 December 13; published 2011 January 28
ABSTRACT
In the spring of 2009, the Kepler Mission commenced high-precision photometry on nearly 156,000 stars to determine the frequency and characteristics of small exoplanets, conduct a guest observer program, and obtain asteroseismic data on a wide variety of stars. On 2010 June 15, the Kepler Mission released most of the data from the first quarter of observations. At the time of this data release, 705 stars from this first data set have exoplanet candidates with sizes from as small as that of Earth to larger than that of Jupiter. Here we give the identity and characteristics of 305 released stars with planetary candidates. Data for the remaining 400 stars with planetary candidates will be released in 2011 February. More than half the candidates on the released list have radii less than half that of Jupiter. Five candidates are present in and near the habitable zone; two near super-Earth size, and three bracketing the size of Jupiter. The released stars also include five possible multi-planet systems. One of these has two Neptune-size (2.3 and 2.5 Earth radius) candidates with near-resonant periods.
Key words: planets and satellites: detection – surveys
Online-only material: color figures
1. INTRODUCTION
Kepler is a Discovery-class mission designed to determine the frequency of Earth-size planets in and near the habitable zone (HZ) of solar-type stars. The instrument consists of a 0.95 m aperture telescope / photometer designed to obtain high-precision photometric measurements of > 100,000 stars to search for patterns of transits. The focal plane of the Schmidttype telescope contains 42 CCDs with a total of 95 megapixels that cover 115 deg 2 of sky.
Kepler was launched into an
Earth-trailing heliocentric orbit on 2009 March 6, finished its commissioning on 2009 May 12, and is now in science operations mode. Further details of the Kepler Mission and
instrument can be found in Koch et al. ( 2010b ), Jenkins et al.
( 2010c
), and Caldwell et al. ( 2010 ).
During the commissioning period, photometric measurements were obtained at a 30-minute cadence for 53,000 stars for 9.7 days. During the first 33.5 days of science-mode
1

The Astrophysical Journal
, 728:117 (20pp), 2011 February 20 operation, 156,097 stars were similarly observed. Five new exoplanets with sizes between 0.37 and 1.6 Jupiter radii and orbital periods from 3.2 to 4.9 days were confirmed by radial velocity (RV) observations (Borucki et al.
2010 ; Koch et al.
2010a ;
Dunham et al.
2010 ; Jenkins et al.
2010a ; Latham et al.
2010 ).
The results discussed in this paper are based on the first data segment taken at the beginning of science operations on 2009
May 13 UT and finished on 2009 15 June 15 UT; a 33.5-day segment (labeled Q1).
The observations used Kepler ’s normal list of 156,097 exoplanet target stars. The Kepler K p bandpass covers both the V and R photometric passbands. These stars are primarily mainsequence dwarfs chosen from the Kepler Input Catalog (KIC).
Stars were chosen to maximize the number of stars that were both bright and small enough to show detectable transit signals for small planets in and near the HZ (Batalha et al.
2010 ). Most
stars were in the magnitude range 9 < K p
< 16.
Data for all stars are recorded at a cadence of one per
29.4 minutes (hereafter, long cadence, or LC). Data for a subset of 512 stars are also recorded at a cadence of one per
58.5 s (hereafter, short cadence or SC), sufficient to conduct asteroseismic observations needed for measurements of the stars’ size, mass, and age. The results presented here are based only on LC data. For a full discussion of the LC data and their
reduction, see Jenkins et al. ( 2010b , 2010c ); see Gilliland et al.
( 2010 ) for a discussion of the SC data.
At the one-year anniversary of the receipt of the first set of data from the beginning of science operations, the data for
156,097 stars covering these two periods are now available to the public, apart from two exceptions: 400 stars held back to allow completion of one season of observations by the Kepler team, and 2778 stars held back for the Guest Observers and
Asteroseismic Science Consortium (KASC). These data will be released on 2011 February 1, and in 2010 November when the proprietary period is complete, respectively. A total of 152,919 stars are now available at several levels of processing at the
Multi-Mission Archive at the Space Telescope Science Institute
(MAST 27 ) for analysis by the community.
2. DESCRIPTION OF THE DATA
Because of great improvements to the data-processing pipeline, many more candidates are readily visible than in the data used for the papers published in early 2010. During the early phase of operations, many of the candidates were found by visual inspection, but with recent improvements to the analysis pipeline, most are now being detected in an automated fashion. Over 855 stars with transiting exoplanet signatures have been identified. Of those, approximately 150 have been identified as likely false positives and, consequently, removed from consideration as viable exoplanet candidates.
A separate paper that identifies false positive events found in the released data will be submitted. In the interim, see the list at the MAST. False positive events are patterns of dimming that appear to be the result of planetary transits, but are actually caused by other astrophysical processes or by instrumental fluctuations in the brightness values that mimic planetary transits. The identification of the false positives should help the community avoid wasting observation resources.
Data and search techniques capable of finding planetary transits are also very sensitive to eclipsing binary (EB) stars, and indeed the number of EBs discovered with Kepler vastly
27 http://archive.stsci.edu/kepler/kepler_fov/search.php
2
Borucki et al.
exceeds the number of planetary candidates. With more study, some of the current planetary candidates might also be shown to
be EBs. Prsa et al. ( 2010 ) present a list of EBs with their basic
system parameters that have been detected in these early data.
The discussion in this paper covers the 305 stars with candidates that the Kepler team does not plan to give high priority for follow-up confirmation. These are generally faint stars and were not observed for the first 9.7-day time interval.
Thus, only 33.5 days of data are available for most candidates discussed herein. An
Appendix
identifying these candidates and providing their characteristics is attached.
2.1. Selecting the Candidates to Release
The candidates discussed here do not include 400 stars selected as high-priority targets. These are primarily those amenable to ground-based follow-up observations and those with the smallest candidates. In particular, these stars include
(1) those showing two or more sets of transit events at distinctly different periods, (2) those showing any indication of transittiming variations that could lead to detection of additional planets, (3) stars cooler than 4000 K, (4) stars brighter than
K p
=
13.9, (5) candidates with a likelihood of showing a secondary occultation event, and (6) stars with candidates smaller than 1.5
R
⊕
. The likelihood of an occultation event is determined by computing the ratio of the stellar luminosity to the thermal emission of the planet assuming an even distribution of energy over the day and night side of the planet, an albedo of 0.1, and a circular orbit at a distance given by the stellar properties in the KIC and the period provided by the transit photometry.
This ratio is then compared to the expected photometric noise given the apparent brightness of the star in question. Targets are flagged if the occultation depth is expected to be larger than 2 σ . Collectively, these criteria yielded 400 stars, though the large majority of candidates were selected simply based on the brightness cutoff (e.g., amenability to ground-based followup observations). These targets will be released to the public in
2011 February, giving the team a full observing season to collect follow-up observations that will help to weed out astrophysical false positives. The remaining 305 stars comprise the sample described herein.
2.2. Noise Sources in the Data
The Kepler photometric data contain a wide variety of both random and systematic noise sources. Random noise sources such as shot noise from the photon flux and read noise have
(white) Gaussian distributions. Stellar variability introduces red (correlated) noise. For many stars, stellar variability is the largest noise source. There are also many types of instrumentinduced noise: pattern noise from the clock drivers for the “fineguidance” sensors, start-of-line ringing, overshoot / undershoot due to the finite bandwidth of the detector amplifiers, and signals that move through the output produced by some of the amplifiers that oscillate. The latter noise patterns (which are typically smaller than one least-significant-bit in the digital-toanalog converter for a single read operation) are greatly affected by slight temperature changes, making their removal difficult.
Noise due to pointing drift, focus changes, differential velocity aberration, CCD defects, cosmic ray events, reaction wheel heater cycles, breaks in the flux time series due to desaturation of the reaction wheels, spacecraft upsets, monthly rolls to downlink the data, and quarterly rolls to re-orient the spacecraft to keep the solar panels pointed at the Sun are also present.

The Astrophysical Journal
, 728:117 (20pp), 2011 February 20
These sources and others are treated in Jenkins et al. ( 2010b )
and Caldwell et al. ( 2010 ). Work is underway to improve the
mitigation and flagging of the affected data. Additional noise sources are seen in the short cadence data (Gilliland et al.
2010 ).
In particular, a frequency analysis of these data often shows spurious regularly spaced peaks at 48.9388 day
−
1 and their harmonics. Additionally, there appears to be a noise source that causes additive offsets in the time domain inversely proportional to stellar brightness.
Because of the complexity of the various small effects that are important to the quality of the Kepler data, prospective users of Kepler data are strongly urged to study the data release notes
(hosted at the MAST) for the data sets they intend to use. Note that the Kepler data analysis pipeline was designed to perform differential photometry to detect planetary transits so other uses of the data products require caution.
2.3. Distinguishing Planetary Candidates from False Positive Events
Stars that show a pattern consistent with those from a planet transiting its host star are labeled “planetary candidates.” Those that were at one time considered to be planetary candidates, but subsequently failed some consistency test, are labeled “false positives.” Thus, the search for planets starts with a search of the time series of each star for a pattern that exceeds a detection threshold commensurate with a non-random event.
After passing all consistency tests described below, and only after a review of all the evidence by the entire Kepler Science
Team, does the candidate become a validated exoplanet. It is then submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication.
There are two general types of processes associated with false positive events in the Kepler data that must be evaluated and eliminated before a candidate planet can be considered a valid discovery: (1) statistical fluctuations or systematic variations in the time series, and (2) astrophysical phenomena that produce similar signals. A sufficiently high threshold has been used that statistical fluctuations should not contribute to the candidates proposed here. Similarly, systematic variations in the data have been interpreted in a conservative manner and only rarely should result in false positives. However, astrophysical phenomena that produce transit-like signals will be much more common.
2.4. Search for False Positives in the Output of the Data Pipeline
The Transiting Planet Search (TPS) pipeline searches through each systematic error-corrected flux time series for periodic sequences of negative pulses corresponding to transit signatures. The approach is a wavelet-based, adaptive matched filter that characterizes the power spectral density (PSD) of the background process yielding the observed light curve and uses this time-variable PSD estimate to realize a pre-whitening filter and whiten the light curve (Jenkins
2002 ; Jenkins et al.
2010c ,
2010d ). Transiting Planet Search then convolves a transit wave-
form, whitened by the same pre-whitening filter as the data, with the whitened data to obtain a time series of single event statistics. These represent the likelihood that a transit of that duration is present at each time step. The single event statistics are combined into multiple event statistics by folding them at trial orbital periods ranging from 0.5 days to as long as one quarter
(
∼
90 days). The step sizes in period and epoch are chosen to control the minimum correlation coefficient between neighboring transit models used in the search so as to maintain a high
3
Borucki et al.
sensitivity to transit sequences in the data. The transit durations used for TPS through 2010 June were 3, 6, and 12 hr. These transit durations will be augmented to include 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0,
4.0, 5.0, 6.0, 7.5, 9.5, 12.0, and 15.0 hr in order to maintain a similar degree of sensitivity as that achieved for epoch and period. This modification should increase the sensitivity to low signal-to-noise ratio (S / N) signals. Transiting Planet Search is also being modified to conduct searches across the entire mission duration by “stitching” quarterly segments together so that we can identify periods longer than one quarter in the data.
The maximum multiple event statistics is collected for each star and those with maximum multiple event statistics greater than 7.1
σ are flagged as threshold crossing events (TCEs).
The Data Validation (DV) pipeline fits limb-darkened transit models to each TCE and performs a suite of diagnostic tests to build or break confidence in each TCE as a planetary signature as opposed to an EB or noise fluctuation (Wu et al.
2010 ; Tenenbaum et al.
2010 ). Data Validation removes the
transit signature from the light curve and searches for additional transiting planets using a call to TPS. Threshold crossing events with transit depths more than 15% are not processed by DV since they are most likely to be EBs. Also, currently light curves whose maximum multiple event statistics are less than
1.25 times the maximum single event statistic are not processed by DV since these are likely due to one large single event, and most of these cases are due to radiation-induced step discontinuities introduced at the pixel level.
Using these estimates and information about the star from the
KIC, tests are performed to search for a difference in even- and odd-numbered event depths. If a significant difference exists, this would suggest that a comparable-brightness EB has been found for which the true period is twice that determined due to the presence of primary and secondary eclipses. Similarly, a search is conducted for evidence of a secondary eclipse or a possible planetary occultation roughly half-way between the potential transits. If a secondary eclipse is seen, then this could indicate that the system is an EB with the period assumed.
However, the possibility of a self-luminous planet (as with
HAT-P-7; Borucki et al.
2009 ) must be considered before
dismissing a candidate as a false positive.
The shift in the centroid position of the target star measured in and out of the transits must be consistent with that predicted from the fluxes and locations of the target and nearby stars.
After passing these tests, the candidate is elevated to
“ Kepler Object of Interest” (KOI) status and is forwarded to the Threshold Crossing Event Review Team. They examine the information associated with each KOI, add any that they have found by visual inspection, judge the priority of each KOI, and then send the highest priority candidates to the Follow-up Observation Program (FOP) for various types of observations and additional analysis. These observations include the following.
1. High-resolution imaging with adaptive optics or speckle interferometry to evaluate the contribution of other stars to the photometric signal and to evaluate the shift of the photocenter when a transit occurs.
2. Medium-precision RV measurements are made to rule out stellar or brown dwarf mass companions and to better characterize the host star.
3. A stellar blend model (Torres et al.
2004 ) is used to check
that the photometry is consistent with a planet orbiting a star rather than the signature of a multi-star system.
4. High-precision RV measurements may be made, as appropriate, to verify the phase and period of the most promising

The Astrophysical Journal
, 728:117 (20pp), 2011 February 20 candidates and ultimately to determine the mass and eccentricity of the companion and to identify other non-transiting planets. For low-mass planets where the RV precision is not sufficiently high to detect the stellar RV variations, RV observations are conducted to produce an upper limit for the planet mass and assure that there is no other body that could cause confusion.
5. When the observations indicate that the Rossiter–
McLaughlin effect (Winn
2007 ) will be large enough to be
measured in the confirmation process, such measurements may be scheduled, typically at the Keck Observatory.
6. When the data indicate the possibility of transit-timing variations large enough to assist in the confirmation process, the multiple-planet and transit-timing working groups perform additional analysis of the light curve and possible dynamical explanations (Steffen et al.
2010 ).
2.5. Estimate of the False Positive Rate
This paper discusses the characteristics for the 311 candidates
(associated with 305 stars) in the released list. These candidates have not been fully vetted through the steps described above, so a substantial fraction of the candidates could be false positives. The process of determining the residual false positive fraction for Kepler candidates at various stages in the validation process has not proceeded far enough to make good quantitative statements about the expected true planet fraction, or purity, of the released list but a modest improvement can be made over the broad estimate of 24%–60% good planets given in Gautier
et al. ( 2010 ).
The candidates come from about 425 TCEs using the first three, pre-FOP, validation steps; i.e., check that the odd- and even-numbered transit depths have the amplitude, search for a secondary eclipse, and check that any centroid shift during the transits is consistent with a transit of the target star. Essentially no analysis of ground-based follow-up observations was applied to the released list. About 29% of the 425 TCEs were removed as false positives, mainly EB target stars and background eclipsing binaries (BGEBs) whose images were confused with those of the target stars. The false positives remaining in the 312 candidates should consist of BGEBs closer to the target star than the preliminary vetting could detect, EBs missed in the preliminary light curve analysis, and triple systems harboring an EB.
The analysis used to identify false positives in the 425
TCEs is not considered thorough. For instance, the centroid motion analysis to detect BGEBs in the released list is not particularly sensitive because only the KIC stars in the aperture used for the KOIs were used. A higher sensitivity to BGEBs is obtained when follow-up imaging of star fields around the
KOIs is made using high spatial resolution imaging techniques.
A rough estimate is that 70%–90% of the EBs and BGEBs were detected, leaving 14–53 EBs and BGEBs in the list. Analysis of medium-precision RV measurements of 268 of the 400 candidates sequestered by the Kepler team shows clear signs of 16 EBs that were not found in a relatively thorough light curve analysis. This fraction implies that 14–22 of these EBs
are left in the released list. Brown & Latham ( 2008 ) estimate that
the number of hierarchical triple systems expected to be seen by the proposed Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS) will be about equal to the number of planets. Almenara et al.
( 2009 ) find 6 hierarchical blends and 6 planets in a sample of
49 CoRoT candidates that were completely “solved.” Combining these estimates yields an expectation of 52
±
20 EBs and
4
Borucki et al.
BGEBs in the 312 candidates leaving 249
±
20 true planets plus hierarchical blends. Assuming a 1:1 ratio of planets to hierarchical blends, the fraction of planets in the released sample is estimated to be 41%
±
7%. This estimate might become as poor as 41%
±
17% if the uncertainty on the 1:1 ratio is as large as 40%, derived from the small number statistics used in the
Almenara paper.
It is difficult to compare our estimated purity of 41% to purity estimates of other expolanet surveys at the same stage of candidate vetting. The sample of 49 CoRoT candidates in
Almenara et al. ( 2009 ) is at roughly the same stage of vetting as
our sample and yielded 6 planets for a purity of 12%. However, the Kepler analysis has been able to take advantage of centroid motion analysis in our vetting while the CoRoT sample had essentially no vetting for BGEBs. Reducing the 19 BGEBs in the CoRoT sample by 80% to make it similar to our sample produces a purity of 18%. The difference appears to come from the larger fraction of EBs in the CoRoT sample than we expect in
ours. Estimates for TESS from Brown & Latham ( 2008 ) predict
28% purity, near the lower end of estimates for our list at a vetting stage similar to ours.
3. RESULTS
For the released candidates, the KOI number, the KIC number, the stellar magnitude, effective temperature, and surface gravity of the star taken from the KIC are listed in the
Appendix .
Also listed are the orbital period, epoch, and an estimate of the size of the candidate. When only one transit is seen in the Q1 data, the epoch and period are calculated using data obtained subsequently. More information on the characteristics of each star can be obtained from the KIC. Several of the target stars show more than one series of planetary transit-like events and therefore have more than one planetary candidate.
These candidate multi-planet systems are of particular interest to investigations of planetary dynamics. The candidate multipleplanet systems (i.e., KOI 152, 191, 209, 877, and 896) are discussed in a later section.
3.1. Naming Convention
It is expected that many of the candidates listed in the
Appendix
will be followed up by members of the science community and that many will be confirmed as planets. To avoid confusion in naming them, it is suggested that the community refers to Kepler stars as KIC NNNNNNN (with a space between the
“KIC” and the number), where the integer refers to the ID in the
KIC archived at MAST. For planet identifications, a letter designating the first, second, etc., confirmed planet as “b,” “c,” etc.
should follow the KIC ID number. At regular intervals, the literature will be combed for planets found in the Kepler star field, sequential numbers assigned, the IAU-approved prefix (“ Kepler ”) added, and the information on the planet with its reference will be placed in the Kepler Results Catalog. Preliminary versions of this catalog will be available at the MAST and revised on a yearly basis.
3.2. Statistical Properties of Planet Candidates
We have conducted some statistical analyses of the 306 of the 311 released candidates to investigate the general trends and initial indications of the characteristics of the detected planetary candidates. Five of the 312 candidates were not considered in

The Astrophysical Journal
, 728:117 (20pp), 2011 February 20
5
4.5
16000
14000
4
3.5
3
12000
10000
8000
2.5
2
6000
4000
1.5
1
2000
0.5
4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
Effective Temperature (K)
0
13.5
14 14.5
15
Kp
15.5
Figure 1.
Distributions of effective temperature and magnitude for the stars considered in this study.
(A color version of this figure is available in the online journal.)
16 16.5
Borucki et al.
the analysis because they were at least twice the size of Jupiter and are likely to be M dwarf stars.
The readers are cautioned that the sample considered here contains many poorly quantified biases. Some of the released candidates could be false positives. Further, those candidates orbiting stars brighter than 13.9 mag and the small-size candidates (i.e., those with radii less than 1.5
R
⊕
) are not among the released stars. Nevertheless, the large number of candidates provides interesting, albeit tentative, associations with stellar characteristics. Comparisons are limited to orbital periods of
< 33 .
5 days. For candidates with periods greater than 16.75
days and that have only a single transit during Q1, data obtained at a later date were used to compute the orbital period to provide necessary information for observers.
In the figures below, the distributions of various parameters are plotted and compared with values in the literature and those
derived from the Extrasolar Planets Encyclopedia
28
(EPE; as of
2010 December 7).
The results discussed here for the 306 candidates are primarily based on the observations of 87,615 stars with K p
> 13.9 with effective temperature above 4000 K, and with size less than
10 times the size of the Sun. The latter condition is imposed because the photometric precision is insufficient to find Jupitersize and smaller planets orbiting stars with 100 times area of the
Sun. Stellar parameters are based on KIC data. The function of the KIC was to provide a target sample with a low fraction of evolved stars that would be unsuitable for transit work, and to provide a first estimate of stellar parameters that is intended to be refined spectroscopically for KOI at a later time. Spectroscopic observations have not been made for the released stars, so it is important to recognize that some of the characteristics listed for the stars are uncertain, especially surface gravity (i.e., log g ) and metallicity ([ M / H ]). The errors in the star diameters can reach
25%, with proportional changes to the estimated diameter of the candidates.
28
Extrasolar Planets Encyclopedia: http://exoplanet.eu/ .
5
In Figure
1 , the stellar distributions of magnitude and effec-
tive temperature are given for reference. In later figures, the association of the candidates with these properties is examined.
It is clear from Figure
1
that most of the stars monitored by
Kepler have temperatures between 4000 and 6500 K; they are mostly late F, G, and K spectral types. This is because these types are the most frequent for a magnitude-limited survey of dwarfs and because the selection of target stars was purposefully skewed to enhance the detectability of Earth-size planets by choosing those with an effective temperature and magnitude that maximized the transit S / N (Batalha et al.
2010 ). Thus,
the decrease in the number of monitored stars for magnitudes greater than 15.5 is due to the selection of only those stars in the field of view (FOV) that are likely to be small enough to show planets. In particular, A, F, and G stars were selected at magnitudes where they are sufficiently bright for their low shot noise to overcome the lower S / N for a given planet size due to their large stellar radii. After all available bright dwarf stars are chosen for the target list, many target slots remain, but only dimmer stars are available (Batalha et al.
2010 ). From the
dimmest stars, the smallest stars are given preference. In the following figures, when appropriate, the results will be based on the ratio of the number of candidates to the number of stars in each category.
A comparison of the distributions shown in Figure
2
indicates that the majority of the candidates discovered by Kepler are
Neptune-size (i.e., 3.8
R
⊕
) and smaller; in contrast, the planets discovered by the transit method and listed in the EPE are typically Jupiter-size (i.e., 11.2
R
⊕
) and larger. This difference is understandable because of the difficulty in detecting small planets when observing through Earth’s atmosphere.
The Kepler results shown in Figure
2
imply that small candidate planets with periods less than 33.5 days are much more common than large candidate planets with periods less than
33.5 days and that the ground-based discoveries are potentially sampling the upper tail of the size distribution (Gaudi
2005 ).
Note that for a substantial range of planet sizes, an R
−
2

The Astrophysical Journal
, 728:117 (20pp), 2011 February 20
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Analytic curve−1/R
2
15
10
5
0
0 5 10
Planet radius (Re)
15 20
Figure 2.
Size distribution. Upper panel: Kepler candidates. Lower panel: planets discovered by the transit method and listed in the EPE as of 2010
December 7 (without Kepler planets).
(A color version of this figure is available in the online journal.)
80
60
40
20
Line shows the relative effect of the probability of geometrical alignment
0
0 0.05
0.1
Semi−Major Axis, a (AU)
0.15
0.2
50
40
30
20
10
0
−1.6
−1.5
−1.4
−1.3
−1.2
−1.1
−1 logarithm Semi−Major Axis, a (AU)
−0.9
−0.8
−0.7
Figure 3.
Semi-major axis distribution of candidates. Upper panel: in linear intervals. Lower panel: in logarithmic intervals.
(A color version of this figure is available in the online journal.)
Borucki et al.
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
80
Super−Earth−size
60
40
20
0
Neptune−size
30
20
10
Jupiter−size
3
2
1
Very−Large− size
0
0 .04
.08
.12
.16
Semi−major Axis (AU)
.2
0
0 .04
.08
.12
.16
Semi−major Axis (AU)
.2
Figure 4.
Semi-major axis distribution of candidates grouped into four candidate sizes.
(A color version of this figure is available in the online journal.)
60
40
20
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 5 10 15
Orbital Period (d)
20 25 30
Figure 5.
Upper panel: period distribution of Kepler candidate planets.
Lower panel: period distribution of exoplanets listed in the EPE (as of 2010
December 7) determined from RV measurements.
(A color version of this figure is available in the online journal.) curve fits the Kepler data well. Because it is much easier to detect larger candidates than smaller ones, this result implies that the frequency of planets decreases with the area of the planet, assuming that the false positive rate and other biases are independent of planet size for planets larger than 2 Earth radii.
In Figure
3 , the dependence of the number of candidates
on the semimajor axis is examined. In the upper panel, an analytic curve has been fitted to show the expected reduction in the integrated number in each interval due to the decreasing geometrical probability that orbits are correctly aligned with the line of sight. It has been fitted over the range of semimajor axis from 0.04 to 0.2 AU corresponding to orbital periods from
3 days to ∼ 33 days for a solar-mass star.
Although the corrections necessary to normalize the observed distribution to an unbiased one are too lengthy to consider here, we performed a statistical analysis that corrected for the probability of orbital alignment. Although the sample sizes are small and thus the results are uncertain, it is interesting to
6 correct the observations to get a lower limit to the occurrence frequencies.
The corrected number of candidates ( Nc ) in each 0.01 AU interval of the semimajor axis is estimated from
N c
=
Average( a i
/R i
) N obs
, (1) where a i is the semimajor axis of candidate “ i ,” R i is the stellar radius of the host star, N obs is the number of detected candidates in the interval of the semimajor axis, and the index “ i ” counts only those candidates in each increment of the semimajor axis.
Considering only this correction and only for the range of the semimajor axis from 0.04 to 0.2 AU, the fraction of stars detected with candidates is nearly constant with the semimajor axis and equal to 6.8
× 10
−
2 .
Only a small decrease in the number of candidates with the logarithm of the semimajor axis is seen in the bottom panel of
Figure
3 . Appropriate corrections for the geometric probability

The Astrophysical Journal
, 728:117 (20pp), 2011 February 20
60
50
40
All Sizes
6
Super−Earth−size
5
4
40
30
Neptune−size
30
20
10
0
0
3
2
1
0
0
20
10
10 20 30 10 20 30
0
0 10 20 30
Orbital Period (d)
14
12
10
8
6
Jupiter−size
4
2
0
0 10 20 30
Orbital Period (d)
2
1.5
1
0.5
Very−Large− size
0
0 10 20 30
Orbital Period (d)
Figure 6.
Orbital period distribution for several choices of candidate size.
(A color version of this figure is available in the online journal.) showed a large increase in the number per logarithmic interval as expected from an examination of the upper panel. Thus, these observations are not consistent with a logarithmic distribution of candidates with semimajor axis.
A breakout of the number of candidates versus semimajor axis is shown in Figure
4 . “Super-Earth-size” candidates are
those with sizes from 1.25
R ⊕ to 2.0
R ⊕ . These are expected to be rocky-type planets without a hydrogen–helium atmosphere.
“Neptune-size” candidates are those with sizes from 2.0
R ⊕ to
6 R
⊕
, and are expected to be similar to Neptune and the ice giants in composition. Candidates with sizes between 6 and 15
R
⊕ and between 15 and 22 R
⊕ are labeled Jupiter-size and very large candidates, respectively. The nature of the larger category of objects is unclear. No mass measurements are available. It is possible that they are small stars transiting large stars. It is
Borucki et al.
also possible that these are ordinary Jovian planets whose stars have incorrectly assigned radii or that they are the tail of the distribution of large planets.
A correction of these results for the probability of a geometrical alignment shows that the adjusted occurrence frequencies of candidate planets are 8
×
10
−
3 , 4.6
×
10
−
2 , 1.2
×
10
−
2 , and
2 × 10
− 3 for super-Earth-size, Neptune-size, Jupiter-size, and the very large candidates, respectively. Substantial increases in the values for the smaller candidates are expected when more comprehensive corrections are made for low-level signals that are currently too noisy to produce detectable transits and when a larger range of semimajor axis is considered.
There are several references in the literature to the pile-up of giant planet orbital periods near 3 days (Santos & Mayor
2003 )
and a “desert” for orbital periods in excess of 5 days. Figure
5
is a comparison of distributions of frequency with orbital period for the Kepler results with that derived from the planets listed in the
EPE. In this instance, the much larger number of planets listed in the EPE under RV discoveries was used in the comparison.
The very compact distribution of frequency with orbital periods between 3 and 7 days seen in the EPE results is also seen in the Kepler results. However, there is little sign of the “desert” that has been discussed in the literature with respect to the RV results for giant planets. We note that the Kepler sample contains a much larger fraction of super-Earth-size candidates than does the EPE sample.
In Figure
6 , the dependences of the number of candidates
with the size groups and orbital period are shown.
The first four panels indicate that the observed number of candidates is decreasing with orbital period regardless of size and that there is a peak in concentration for orbital periods between 2 and 5 days for all sizes.
All panels in Figure
7
show a lack of candidates with radius less than 1.5
R
⊕
. This result is mostly due to the sequestration of small candidates for follow-up observations during the summer of 2010. In the upper left panel, the decrease in the number of candidates with increasing orbital period and with decreasing size is evident. In contrast to the strong correlation of decreasing
15
12
9
6
3
0
0 30
15
12
9
6
3
0
0 10 20
Orbital Period (d)
0.05
0.1
0.15
Semi−major Axis (AU)
0.2
15
12
9
15
12
9
6
3
6
3
0
4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500
Stellar Effective Temperature (K)
0
500 1000
Equilibrium Temperature(K)
1500
Figure 7.
Candidate size vs. orbital period, semimajor axis, stellar effective temperature, and equilibirum temperature. Horizontal lines mark ratios of candidate sizes for Earth-size, Neptune-size, and Jupiter-size relative to Earth size. The vertical lines in panel (d) mark off the HZ temperature range: 273–373 K.
7

The Astrophysical Journal
, 728:117 (20pp), 2011 February 20
0.0006
0.0004
0.0002
Super−Earth−size
0.004
0.003
0.002
0.001
0
Neptune−size
0
0.0015
0.0012
0.0009
0.0006
0.0003
Jupiter−size
0.0003
0.00025
0.0002
0.00015
Very−Large−size
0.0001
0.00005
0
14 14.5
15 15.5
16
0
14 14.5
15 15.5
16
Kepler Magnitude Kepler Magnitude
Figure 8.
Measured frequencies of candidates for four size ranges as a function of Kepler magnitude.
(A color version of this figure is available in the online journal.)
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
40
Super−Earth−size
80
60
40
20
Neptune−size
30
20
10
Jupiter−size
4
3
2
1
0
5
Very−Large−size
0
4000 5000 6000 7000
Stellar effective temperature (K)
8000
0
4000 5000 6000 7000
Stellar effective temperature(K)
8000
Figure 9.
Number of candidates for various candidate sizes vs. stellar effective temperature.
(A color version of this figure is available in the online journal.)
Candidate Size ( R ⊕ )
1 .
9
1 .
9
15 .
6
7 .
0
9 .
3
Table 1
Properties of Five Candidates In or Near the HZ
Candidate Properties
Period (days)
25.698
40.588
38.037
119.021
83.904
T eq
(K)
400
411
370
333
287
Epoch a
121.780
132.291
129.933
155.237
169.808
KIC No.
3966801
5461440
4932348
6862328
8018547
Stellar Properties
KOI No.
494.01
504.01
819.01
865.01
902.01
Notes.
a
Epochs are BJD-2454900.
b
The effective temperatures were derived from spectroscopic observations as described in Steffen et al. ( 2010 ).
T eff b
(K)
4854
5403
5386
5560
4312
K p
14.9
14.6
15.5
15.1
15.8
8
Borucki et al.

The Astrophysical Journal
, 728:117 (20pp), 2011 February 20
Borucki et al.
0.004
0.003
0.002
0.001
0
0.0005
0.0004
0.0003
0.0002
0.0001
0
0.004
0.0012
0.003
0.0010
0.0008
0.002
0.0006
0.0004
0.001
0.0002
0
4000 5000 6000
Stellar temperature
7000
0
4000 5000 6000
Stellar temperature
7000
Figure 10.
Measured frequency of stars with candidates vs. stellar temperature. From upper left (clockwise): all released candidates, super-Earth-size candidates,
Neptune-size candidates, and Jupiter-size candidates.
(A color version of this figure is available in the online journal.)
KOI No,
152.01
152.02
152.03
191.01
191.02
209.01
209.02
877.01
877.02
896.01
896.02
Table 2
Properties of Five Multi-candidate Systems
Candidate Size
0 .
58 R
J
0 .
31 R
J
0 .
30 R
J
1 .
06 R
J
2 .
04 R ⊕
1 .
05 R
J
0 .
68 R
J
2 .
53 R ⊕
2 .
34 R ⊕
0 .
38 R
J
0 .
28 R
J
Candidate Properties
Period (days)
> 27
27 .
41
13 .
48
15 .
36
2 .
42
> 29
18 .
80
5 .
95
12 .
04
16 .
24
6 .
31
Epoch a
91.747
66.630
69.622
65.385
65.50
68.635
78.822
103.956
114.227
108.568
107.051
KIC No.
8394721
5972334
10723750
7287995
7825899
T eff b
(K)
6500
5500
6100
4500
5000
Stellar Properties
K p
13.9
R.A. (2000)
20 02 04.1
15.0
14.2
15.0
15.3
19 41 08.9
19 15 10.3
19 34 32.9
19 32 14.9
Decl.
44 22 53.7
41 13 19.1
48 02 24.8
42 49 29.9
43 34 52.9
Notes.
a
Epochs are BJD-2454900.
b
The effective temperatures were derived from spectroscopic observations as described in Steffen et al. ( 2010 ).
planet mass with orbital period found by Torres et al. ( 2008 ),
no analogous dependence of candidate size with orbital period is evident.
The vertical lines in the bottom right panel mark the edges of the HZ; i.e., temperatures of 273 and 373 K. The equilibrium temperatures for the candidates were computed for a Bond albedo of 0.3 and a uniform surface temperature. However, the computed temperatures have an uncertainty of approximately
±
50 K, because of the uncertainties in the stellar size, mass, and temperature as well as the effect of any atmosphere. Over this wider temperature range, five candidates are present; two near super-Earth size, and three bracketing the size of Jupiter; see Table
1 .
In Figure
8 , the frequency of candidates in each magnitude
bin has been calculated from the number of candidates in each bin divided by the total number of stars monitored in each bin.
The number of stars brighter than 14.0 mag and fainter than 16.0
in the current list is so small that the count is not shown.
The panel for super-Earth-size candidates shows a substantial decrease in frequency for magnitudes larger than 15.0 and is indicative of difficulty in detecting small candidates around dim stars.
Figure
9
shows that the number of candidates is a maximum for stars with temperatures between 5000 and 6000 K, i.e.,
G-type dwarfs. This result should be expected because a large number of G -type stars are chosen as target stars. The relatively large number of super-Earth- and Neptune-size candidates orbiting K stars (4000 K stellar temperature 5000 K) is likely the result of small planets being easier to detect around small stars than around large stars and the relatively large number of such stars chosen. Similarly, the paucity of candidates associated with stars at temperatures above 6000 K is likely to be due to the relatively small number of such stars in the survey.
In Figure
10 , the bias associated with the number of target
stars monitored as a function of temperature is removed by
9

The Astrophysical Journal
, 728:117 (20pp), 2011 February 20
Borucki et al.
Figure 11.
Three candidate planets associated with KIC 8394721. The position of the vertical dotted lines shows the position of the transits observed for each of the candidates.
(A color version of this figure is available in the online journal.)
10

The Astrophysical Journal
, 728:117 (20pp), 2011 February 20
Borucki et al.
Figure 12.
Two candidate planets associated with KIC 5972334. The clear detection of two candidates (1.06
R
J super-Earth-size candidates even for stars as dim as 15th magnitude.
(A color version of this figure is available in the online journal.) and 2.0
R ⊕ ) demonstrates that Kepler can detect computing the frequencies of the candidates as a fraction of the number of stars monitored.
Note that the frequency for the total of all candidate sizes is nearly constant with increasing stellar temperature. However, for super-Earth candidates, the decrease with temperature is quite marked, as might be expected when considering the substantially lower S / N due to the increase of stellar size of main-sequence stars with temperature. It is unclear whether the decrease in occurrence frequency is real or a measurement bias.
The observed increase in the frequency with stellar temperature for Jupiter-size candidates should not be biased because the signal level for such large candidates is many times the noise level associated with the instrument and shot noise. Thus, this increase could indicate a real, positive correlation of giant candidates with stellar mass (Johnson et al.
2010 ).
A study of the dependence of the frequency of the planet candidates on the stellar metallicity was not considered, because the metallicities in the KIC are not considered sufficiently reliable. In particular, the D51 filter used in the estimation of metallicity is sensitive to a combination of the effects of surface gravity and metallicity, especially within the temperature range from roughly late K to late F stars. However, the information generated by this filter was used to develop the association with log g , thereby making any estimate of metallicity highly uncertain.
4. EXAMPLES OF CANDIDATE MULTI-PLANET
SYSTEMS
A number of target stars with multiple-planet candidates orbiting a single star have been detected in the Kepler data. The light curves for five multi-candidate systems in the released data are shown in Figures
11 –
15 . Only a single transit-like event is
seen in Q1 for some planet candidates, as expected for planets
11

The Astrophysical Journal
, 728:117 (20pp), 2011 February 20
Borucki et al.
Figure 13.
KIC 10723750. The two sets of transits correspond to two different Jupiter-size (1.05 and 0.68
R
J
) candidates with long periods.
(A color version of this figure is available in the online journal.) with orbital periods exceeding the 33.5 days of observations.
For other candidate systems, several transits of multiple-planet candidates have been observed.
In two cases, the ratio of putative orbital periods is near 2.
For such a system there is a high (60%) conditional probability that both planets transit, provided that the inner planet transits and the system is planar. For systems with planet candidates having a large ratio of orbital periods (e.g., KOI 191), the probability that the outer planet will transit, given that the inner one does, is small. While an exhaustive study remains to be done, the implication is that many planetary systems have multiple planets or that nearly coplanar planetary systems might be common.
Any of these multiple-planet candidate systems, as well as the single-planet candidate systems, could harbor additional planets that do not transit and therefore are not seen in these data.
Such planets might be detectable via transit-timing variations of the transiting planets after several years of Kepler photometry
(Agol et al.
2005 ; Holman & Murray 2005 ). Based on the data
presented here, we do not find any statistically significant transittiming variations for the five candidate multiple-planet systems or for the single-planet candidates listed in the
Appendix .
Table
2
lists the general characteristics of the five multicandidate systems in the released data. It should be noted that in previous instances, multiple EBs have been seen in the same photometric aperture and can appear to be multiple-planet systems. A thorough analysis of each system and a check for background binaries are required before any discovery should be claimed. A more extensive discussion of these candidates can
be found in Steffen et al. ( 2010 ).
12

The Astrophysical Journal
, 728:117 (20pp), 2011 February 20
Borucki et al.
Figure 14.
KIC 7287995. A cool, spotted star with two super-Earth candidates (2.7 and 2.3
R ⊕ ) with near-resonant periods of 5.96 and 12.04 days.
(A color version of this figure is available in the online journal.)
5. ECLIPSING BINARY DATA
More than 1.2% of Kepler stars are EB stars. Statistical results
derived from 1832 EBs are presented by Prsa et al. ( 2010 ).
Figure
16
depicts a distribution of EB periods. The stacked grayscaled bars correspond to different morphologic types. This distribution can be readily compared to that for transiting planets shown in Figure
5
for the planetary candidates. The distribution of observed EB stars is more heavily weighted toward short periods than is the distribution of planet candidates. This is due to over-contact binaries and ellipsoidal variables, for which there is no counterpart among planets. For a comprehensive discussion of EB stars seen in the Kepler data, see Prsa et al.
( 2010 ).
6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions must be tempered by recognizing that many sources of bias exist in the results and that the results apply only to the released candidates.
Most candidate planets are less than half the radius of Jupiter.
Five candidates are present in and near the HZ; two near super-Earth size, and three bracketing the size of Jupiter.
There is a narrow maximum in the frequency of candidates with orbital period in the range from 2 to 5 days. This peak is more prominent for large candidate planets than for small candidates.
The adjusted occurrence frequencies of super-Earth-,
Neptune-, Jupiter-, and very large size candidates in short-period orbits are approximately 8
×
10
−
3 , 4.6
×
10
−
2 , 1.2
×
10
−
2 , and
2
×
10
− 3
, respectively. These values are expected to be lower than unbiased values because no corrections have been made for factors such as stellar magnitude and variability which have substantial effects on the detectability.
The distributions of orbital period and magnitude of the candidates much larger than Jupiter appear to be quite different from those of smaller candidates and might represent small stellar companions or errors in the size estimation of the dimmest stars in the Kepler planet search program.
13

The Astrophysical Journal
, 728:117 (20pp), 2011 February 20
Borucki et al.
Figure 15.
KIC 7825899. A K-type star with two Neptune-size candidates in 6.3-day and 16.2-day orbits.
(A color version of this figure is available in the online journal.)
One of the five candidate multi-planet systems has two super-Earth-size candidates (2.5 and 2.3
R
⊕ periods of 5.96 and 12.04 days.
) with near-resonant
Kepler was competitively selected as the 10th Discovery mission. Funding for this mission is provided by NASA’s
Science Mission Directorate. Some of the data presented herein were obtained at the W. M. Keck Observatory, which is operated as a scientific partnership among the California Institute of
Technology, the University of California, and the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration. The Observatory was made possible by the generous financial support of the W. M.
Keck Foundation. The authors thank the many people who gave so generously of their time to make this mission a success.
Figure 16.
Distribution of EB stellar periods. Objects are classified into five groups based on their morphologic type: ellipsoidal variables (ELL), overcontact binaries (OC), semi-detached binaries (SD), detached binaries (D), and uncertain
(UnC).
14
APPENDIX
For the released candidates, the KOI number, the KIC number, the stellar magnitude, effective temperature, and surface gravity of the star taken from the KIC are listed in Table
A1 . Also listed

403.01
409.01
410.01
412.01
413.01
416.01
417.01
418.01
419.01
229.01
234.01
235.01
237.01
239.01
240.01
241.01
242.01
430.01
431.01
432.01
433.01
434.01
435.01
438.01
441.01
443.01
420.01
421.01
423.01
425.01
426.01
427.01
428.01
429.01
214.01
215.01
217.01
219.01
220.01
221.01
223.01
224.01
225.01
226.01
198.01
200.01
204.01
206.01
208.01
210.01
211.01
212.01
152.01
152.02
152.03
191.01
191.02
209.01
209.02
184.01
187.01
188.01
193.01
194.01
195.01
3847907
8491277
8107225
8041216
6383785
8026752
11288051
3642741
4247092
5444548
5449777
5683743
5791986
6508221
6879865
7975727
8219673
8352537
9115800
9478990
9967884
10016874
10189546
10418224
10616679
10717241
10843590
10858832
10937029
11656302
11709124
12302530
3340312
3833007
10666242
6046540
9305831
5728139
3762468
10602291
10656508
6300348
11046458
12508335
9595827
6305192
7132798
3937519
4545187
5547480
5801571
5959753
8394721
8394721
8394721
5972334
5972334
10723750
10723750
7972785
7023960
5357901
10799735
10904857
11502867
The Astrophysical Journal
, 728:117 (20pp), 2011 February 20
KOI KIC Number Kp
Table A1
List of Planetary Candidates
Planet Radius
R
J
1.58
0.21
1.07
0.72
0.28
0.27
0.81
1.03
0.67
0.56
0.29
0.18
0.20
0.31
0.45
0.19
0.86
0.25
0.34
0.32
0.52
1.69
0.36
0.19
0.24
0.24
0.42
1.60
0.94
0.43
0.36
0.43
1.04
0.48
1.00
2.70
1.18
0.68
0.38
0.49
0.24
0.32
0.45
0.22
3.43
0.63
0.78
1.20
1.12
1.25
0.94
0.68
0.57
0.31
0.29
1.06
0.19
1.05
0.69
1.59
1.16
0.72
1.46
0.99
1.13
Epoch
BJD-2454900
67.934
65.187
66.818
67.788
71.556
71.615
64.796
71.343
104.132
112.522
109.286
103.325
109.558
118.841
109.965
105.796
122.391
107.084
105.819
135.857
102.753
105.152
124.737
105.518
105.527
112.402
111.712
107.350
104.095
106.103
111.951
107.796
106.917
113.046
64.741
88.206
66.414
65.470
65.939
65.441
67.478
65.073
74.537
71.116
86.369
67.344
66.379
64.982
67.710
72.326
69.014
72.231
91.750
66.634
69.622
65.385
65.492
68.635
78.821
66.566
84.529
66.508
90.349
72.466
66.630
14.2
14.2
14.5
14.3
14.8
14.3
14.8
14.5
14.5
14.7
14.3
14.4
14.2
14.8
15.0
14.1
14.7
14.9
14.3
14.3
14.9
14.6
14.5
14.3
14.5
14.2
14.2
15.0
14.3
14.7
14.7
14.6
14.6
14.5
14.3
14.7
15.1
14.2
14.2
14.6
14.7
14.8
14.8
14.8
14.3
14.4
14.7
14.5
15.0
14.9
15.0
14.9
13.9
13.9
13.9
15.0
15.0
14.3
14.3
14.9
14.9
14.7
14.9
14.8
14.8
15
R
∗
(Sun)
1.022
0.993
1.117
1.256
8.560
0.750
0.851
1.010
0.752
1.119
1.205
0.740
0.919
0.924
1.446
0.689
1.556
0.640
1.004
1.015
1.084
1.350
1.039
0.679
0.838
1.020
0.831
1.158
1.138
0.438
1.188
0.930
1.927
1.024
0.999
1.078
0.896
1.372
0.989
0.898
0.744
0.951
0.919
0.869
0.806
0.759
1.043
1.904
1.176
1.154
1.091
1.056
0.936
0.936
0.936
0.921
0.921
1.418
1.418
1.534
0.829
0.681
1.008
0.820
0.955
log( g )
(cgs)
4.440
5.008
4.384
4.275
4.557
4.647
4.594
4.422
4.695
4.370
4.356
4.654
4.533
4.539
4.602
4.854
4.507
4.584
4.433
4.457
4.372
4.564
4.663
4.595
4.628
4.617
4.513
4.317
4.448
4.544
4.328
4.496
4.549
4.485
4.442
4.395
4.724
4.727
4.867
4.686
4.657
4.507
4.546
4.892
4.629
4.690
4.476
4.345
4.585
4.352
4.407
4.538
4.536
4.536
4.536
4.519
4.519
4.478
4.478
4.431
4.703
4.730
4.465
4.633
4.498
T eff
(K)
5565
5709
5968
5584
5236
5083
5635
5153
5723
5608
5735
5041
5679
5983
5996
5055
5437
4124
5249
5830
5237
5172
5709
4351
6231
5614
4687
5181
5992
5689
5796
5293
6127
5093
5322
5535
5504
5347
5388
5176
5128
5740
6037
5043
5538
5774
5287
5771
6094
5812
6072
5843
6187
6187
6187
5495
5495
6221
6221
6134
5768
5087
5883
5883
5604
Period
(days)
21 .
057
13 .
249
7 .
217
4 .
147
15 .
229
18 .
208
19 .
193
22 .
418
20 .
131
3 .
573
9 .
614
5 .
632
8 .
508
5 .
641
4 .
287
13 .
821
7 .
259
12 .
377
18 .
870
5 .
263
4 .
030
22 .
265
20 .
548
5 .
931
30 .
544
16 .
217
6 .
010
4 .
454
21 .
087
5 .
428
16 .
301
24 .
615
6 .
873
8 .
600
3 .
312
42 .
944
3 .
905
8 .
025
2 .
422
3 .
413
3 .
177
3 .
980
0 .
839
8 .
309
87 .
233
7 .
341
3 .
247
5 .
334
3 .
004
20 .
927
35 .
875
5 .
696
52 .
088
27 .
401
13 .
484
15 .
359
2 .
419
50 .
789
18 .
796
7 .
301
30 .
883
3 .
797
37 .
590
3 .
121
3 .
218
Borucki et al.

522.01
523.01
524.01
525.01
526.01
528.01
532.01
533.01
535.01
537.01
509.01
511.01
512.01
513.01
514.01
519.01
520.01
521.01
494.01
497.01
499.01
501.01
502.01
503.01
504.01
505.01
506.01
507.01
483.01
484.01
486.01
487.01
488.01
491.01
492.01
493.01
538.01
539.01
540.01
541.01
542.01
543.01
544.01
450.01
451.01
452.01
454.01
456.01
457.01
458.01
459.01
460.01
466.01
467.01
468.01
469.01
470.01
471.01
472.01
473.01
474.01
476.01
477.01
480.01
482.01
6381846
6451936
6838050
6937692
7602070
8022244
8037145
8162789
8265218
8806123
8934495
9119458
9157634
9941859
10454313
10513530
10873260
11073351
11497977
12061222
12404305
12834874
2557816
3541800
3559935
3834360
3966801
4757437
4847534
4951877
5282051
5340644
5461440
5689351
5780715
5812960
11090765
11246364
11521048
11656721
11669239
11823054
11913012
6042214
6200715
6291033
7098355
7269974
7440748
7504328
7977197
8043638
9008220
9583881
9589524
9703198
9844088
10019643
10123064
10155434
10460984
10599206
10934674
11134879
11255761
The Astrophysical Journal
, 728:117 (20pp), 2011 February 20
KOI KIC Number Kp
Table A1
(Continued)
Epoch
BJD-2454900
102.712
103.504
105.919
103.098
109.061
111.337
103.304
105.003
102.940
131.230
104.997
106.678
104.044
109.674
106.689
104.698
104.182
103.785
106.257
108.064
102.492
106.036
109.444
102.670
127.712
103.125
121.780
108.609
107.535
103.340
104.159
105.958
132.291
107.812
102.966
106.494
104.657
104.196
127.824
113.347
111.682
106.438
104.669
104.150
104.730
106.565
113.637
109.721
111.437
102.646
105.308
102.552
104.953
105.178
102.939
103.557
104.476
107.295
141.081
103.102
109.077
103.538
115.442
107.596
107.607
Planet Radius
R
J
0.19
0.63
0.20
0.49
0.22
0.29
0.23
0.22
0.40
0.18
0.23
0.25
0.25
0.30
0.17
0.21
0.26
0.41
0.24
0.15
0.74
0.15
0.24
0.17
0.15
0.17
0.24
0.17
0.29
0.18
0.23
0.17
0.33
0.25
0.41
0.23
0.20
0.22
0.17
0.18
0.15
0.32
0.21
0.19
0.94
0.32
0.41
0.28
0.48
0.36
0.49
0.30
0.23
0.34
0.21
0.27
0.35
0.17
0.38
0.22
0.22
0.23
0.23
0.24
0.30
14.4
15.0
14.9
14.5
14.4
14.6
14.7
14.7
14.4
14.7
14.9
14.2
14.8
14.9
14.4
14.9
14.6
14.6
14.6
14.1
14.9
14.7
14.3
14.7
14.8
14.9
14.6
14.3
14.6
14.3
15.0
14.6
14.2
14.7
14.9
14.7
14.5
14.1
14.5
14.7
14.4
14.4
14.7
14.2
14.7
14.2
14.7
14.7
14.8
14.8
14.7
14.2
14.9
14.6
14.8
14.6
14.7
14.4
15.0
14.7
14.3
15.0
14.7
14.3
14.9
16
R
∗
(Sun)
0.631
1.066
0.720
1.241
0.796
1.138
1.033
0.985
1.358
0.949
0.900
1.083
1.178
1.204
0.841
0.991
0.946
1.094
1.061
1.137
0.934
0.741
1.128
0.686
1.012
0.620
1.163
0.896
1.502
1.134
0.673
0.678
1.259
0.896
1.024
0.938
0.745
0.969
0.977
0.955
0.798
1.258
0.871
0.904
1.012
1.771
0.835
0.950
0.729
1.248
1.040
1.150
0.590
0.979
0.900
0.827
0.782
0.766
1.149
0.737
1.015
0.881
0.889
0.915
1.036
log( g )
(cgs)
4.910
4.421
4.698
4.281
4.633
4.346
4.540
4.444
4.450
4.906
4.565
4.404
4.316
4.577
4.916
4.523
4.465
4.394
4.427
4.361
4.498
4.712
4.357
4.724
4.585
4.904
4.495
4.531
4.501
4.339
4.550
4.754
4.242
4.557
4.408
4.703
4.759
5.000
4.510
4.490
4.684
4.263
4.571
4.561
4.648
4.409
4.569
4.515
4.650
4.280
4.428
4.334
4.896
4.539
4.499
4.631
4.653
4.670
4.580
4.686
4.468
4.514
4.513
4.511
4.426
T eff
(K)
5663
5942
5187
5524
5467
5448
5874
5198
5782
5889
5437
5802
5406
6288
5446
5807
5048
5767
5923
5722
5361
5369
5509
5166
5883
4854
6045
5362
5556
5288
4110
5403
4985
5777
5117
5410
5065
5625
5463
5488
5965
5373
5583
6089
6333
5935
5138
5644
4931
5593
5601
5387
5907
5583
4999
6005
5542
5548
5682
5379
6143
4993
5039
5324
5526
Period
(days)
12 .
831
49 .
413
4 .
593
11 .
532
2 .
105
9 .
577
4 .
222
16 .
550
5 .
853
2 .
820
4 .
167
8 .
006
6 .
510
35 .
181
11 .
757
11 .
904
12 .
760
10 .
161
25 .
698
13 .
193
9 .
669
24 .
793
5 .
910
8 .
222
40 .
588
13 .
767
1 .
583
18 .
495
4 .
799
17 .
204
22 .
184
7 .
659
9 .
380
4 .
662
29 .
910
2 .
908
21 .
214
29 .
122
25 .
703
13 .
647
41 .
889
4 .
302
3 .
748
27 .
047
3 .
724
3 .
706
29 .
007
13 .
700
4 .
921
53 .
717
19 .
447
17 .
587
9 .
391
18 .
009
22 .
184
10 .
329
3 .
751
21 .
348
4 .
244
12 .
705
10 .
946
18 .
428
16 .
542
4 .
302
4 .
993
Borucki et al.

728.01
729.01
730.01
732.01
733.01
734.01
736.01
737.01
740.01
743.01
609.01
610.01
614.01
617.01
618.01
620.01
725.01
726.01
592.01
593.01
597.01
598.01
599.01
600.01
602.01
605.01
607.01
608.01
581.01
582.01
583.01
585.01
586.01
587.01
588.01
590.01
746.01
747.01
749.01
750.01
752.01
753.01
758.01
546.01
547.01
549.01
551.01
552.01
553.01
554.01
557.01
558.01
559.01
560.01
563.01
564.01
565.01
569.01
570.01
572.01
573.01
574.01
575.01
578.01
580.01
5608566
5686174
7368664
9846086
10353968
11773022
10068383
10157573
10221013
10225800
10227020
10265898
10271806
10272442
10340423
10345478
10395381
10464078
8822216
9020160
9076513
9279669
9570741
9607164
9631762
9782691
9957627
9958962
10600261
10656823
10676824
10718726
12459913
4832837
5441980
5562784
10526549
10583066
10601284
10662202
10797460
10811496
10987985
12058931
12116489
3437776
4270253
5122112
5303551
5443837
5774349
5978361
6422367
6501635
6707833
6786037
7025846
8008206
8106610
8193178
8344004
8355239
8367113
8565266
8625925
The Astrophysical Journal
, 728:117 (20pp), 2011 February 20
KOI KIC Number Kp
Table A1
(Continued)
Epoch
BJD-2454900
105.027
113.850
103.023
131.599
111.347
92.107
102.644
106.266
103.121
102.674
109.793
103.407
102.725
120.924
110.789
115.678
119.368
105.491
108.914
103.467
103.740
104.558
108.979
104.606
108.672
107.545
108.475
104.792
109.942
104.152
106.212
103.367
110.276
102.718
106.492
125.921
106.246
104.602
104.806
104.535
103.533
108.840
109.353
103.202
118.442
105.782
112.777
105.505
104.362
116.405
102.879
108.711
103.186
121.061
126.512
111.850
104.099
104.453
103.544
103.785
106.084
106.712
112.266
108.632
104.887
Planet Radius
R
J
0.89
0.36
0.31
0.25
0.24
0.39
0.25
0.43
0.17
1.65
1.20
0.19
0.36
2.06
0.28
0.65
0.75
0.30
0.24
0.28
0.23
0.19
0.26
2.11
0.43
0.24
0.19
0.20
0.18
0.20
0.18
0.23
0.16
0.57
0.47
0.23
0.20
0.17
0.18
0.16
0.28
0.21
0.16
0.20
0.39
0.28
0.22
0.17
0.16
0.18
0.31
0.31
0.32
0.44
0.17
1.00
0.14
0.21
0.27
0.23
0.28
0.21
0.23
0.46
0.19
15.4
15.6
15.3
15.3
15.6
15.3
16.0
15.7
15.6
15.5
14.5
14.7
14.5
14.6
15.0
14.7
15.8
15.1
15.3
15.8
15.4
15.4
15.3
15.4
15.4
14.3
15.0
14.9
14.8
14.9
14.8
14.6
14.9
14.4
14.7
14.8
14.8
14.6
14.9
14.6
14.6
14.3
14.6
14.9
14.5
15.0
14.9
14.8
14.7
14.5
14.9
14.9
14.8
14.6
14.9
14.7
14.3
14.5
14.8
14.2
14.7
14.9
14.7
14.7
14.9
17
R
∗
(Sun)
0.918
0.838
1.287
0.860
0.730
1.329
0.681
0.798
0.703
1.904
1.231
0.687
0.589
0.917
0.922
1.384
0.882
0.969
0.788
0.608
0.915
0.703
1.067
0.621
1.172
1.077
0.889
1.046
0.749
0.916
1.032
1.282
0.581
0.825
1.326
0.761
0.750
1.197
0.695
0.802
1.005
0.852
0.922
1.244
0.788
1.059
0.775
1.057
1.140
0.809
1.005
0.835
0.955
0.750
1.173
1.453
1.068
0.851
1.033
1.325
1.149
0.727
0.994
1.528
0.806
log( g )
(cgs)
4.544
4.608
4.386
4.588
4.846
4.700
4.552
4.602
4.640
4.304
4.295
4.529
4.887
4.530
4.516
4.544
4.652
4.508
4.551
4.680
4.780
4.624
4.406
4.843
4.284
4.408
4.617
4.416
4.811
4.540
4.445
4.405
4.757
4.608
4.551
4.856
4.650
4.550
4.737
4.669
4.423
4.459
4.546
4.487
4.619
4.414
4.667
4.431
4.394
4.641
4.415
4.580
4.467
4.834
4.477
4.525
4.409
4.546
4.452
4.310
4.352
4.669
4.480
4.362
4.920
T eff
(K)
5976
5707
5599
5360
5038
5719
4157
5117
4711
4877
5696
4072
5675
5594
5471
5803
5046
6164
4681
4357
5374
4619
5584
5648
4869
5810
5737
5833
5171
5820
5869
6007
4270
5497
4324
5514
5103
5735
5437
5707
5112
4431
6106
5989
5086
5609
5627
6018
5404
5835
5002
5281
5187
5142
5879
5686
5829
5039
6079
5666
5729
5047
5979
5777
5603
Period
(days)
7 .
189
1 .
424
14 .
785
1 .
260
5 .
925
24 .
542
18 .
796
14 .
499
17 .
672
19 .
402
4 .
397
14 .
281
12 .
875
37 .
865
9 .
071
45 .
154
7 .
305
5 .
116
39 .
759
9 .
997
17 .
308
8 .
309
6 .
455
3 .
596
12 .
914
2 .
628
5 .
894
25 .
333
6 .
997
5 .
945
2 .
437
3 .
722
15 .
779
14 .
034
10 .
356
11 .
389
9 .
274
6 .
029
5 .
350
21 .
679
9 .
489
19 .
904
16 .
016
20 .
686
25 .
302
42 .
895
11 .
636
3 .
055
2 .
399
3 .
658
15 .
656
9 .
179
4 .
330
23 .
678
15 .
284
21 .
060
2 .
340
20 .
725
12 .
399
10 .
640
5 .
997
20 .
136
24 .
321
6 .
413
6 .
521
Borucki et al.

843.01
845.01
846.01
847.01
849.01
850.01
851.01
852.01
853.01
855.01
827.01
829.01
833.01
834.01
835.01
837.01
838.01
842.01
812.01
813.01
814.01
815.01
819.01
820.01
822.01
823.01
825.01
826.01
793.01
795.01
799.01
802.01
804.01
808.01
810.01
811.01
856.01
857.01
858.01
863.01
865.01
867.01
868.01
759.01
760.01
762.01
764.01
765.01
769.01
770.01
772.01
773.01
776.01
777.01
778.01
782.01
783.01
784.01
785.01
786.01
787.01
788.01
789.01
790.01
791.01
5283542
5358241
5376067
5436502
5456651
5531576
5534814
5794379
5881688
6032497
6061119
6191521
6276477
6291653
6392727
6422070
6428700
6522242
2445129
3114167
3246984
3453214
3641726
3838486
3940418
4049131
4139816
4275191
4476123
4544670
4932348
4936180
5077629
5115978
5252423
5272878
6526710
6587280
6599919
6784235
6862328
6863998
6867155
11018648
11138155
11153539
11304958
11391957
11460018
11463211
11493732
11507101
11812062
11818800
11853255
11960862
12020329
12066335
12070811
12110942
12366084
12404086
12459725
12470844
12644822
The Astrophysical Journal
, 728:117 (20pp), 2011 February 20
KOI KIC Number Kp
Table A1
(Continued)
Epoch
BJD-2454900
107.779
107.778
106.275
104.372
113.936
107.659
106.011
108.349
104.440
110.290
119.713
136.898
103.936
109.522
102.975
104.904
102.690
128.787
106.313
103.575
102.817
114.881
110.194
104.985
103.507
114.427
104.978
103.528
108.450
105.628
129.933
106.720
105.179
103.228
109.957
104.135
105.855
107.884
106.989
105.152
155.237
113.274
141.431
102.991
119.798
111.749
103.366
104.017
109.049
104.505
107.168
113.890
127.134
105.257
104.356
141.932
104.629
104.903
103.998
106.831
105.837
104.792
106.564
103.681
106.634
Planet Radius
R
J
0.56
0.35
1.37
0.70
0.24
0.89
0.50
0.20
0.28
1.21
0.25
0.24
0.39
0.78
0.17
0.16
0.69
0.25
0.91
0.19
0.86
0.22
0.63
0.32
1.04
0.22
0.60
0.27
0.90
1.39
0.67
0.95
0.82
0.19
0.21
0.34
0.22
0.41
0.75
0.23
0.37
0.23
0.41
0.21
0.26
0.68
0.21
0.55
2.00
0.18
0.59
0.32
0.81
0.24
0.71
0.20
0.96
0.25
0.21
0.17
0.30
0.31
0.15
0.18
0.79
15.3
15.4
15.5
15.2
15.0
15.3
15.3
15.3
15.4
15.2
15.5
15.4
15.4
15.1
15.2
15.7
15.3
15.4
15.3
15.1
15.1
15.5
15.1
15.2
15.2
16.0
15.7
15.6
15.7
15.5
15.3
15.8
15.2
15.3
15.1
15.1
15.6
15.3
15.6
15.4
15.8
15.1
15.4
15.4
15.5
15.2
15.2
15.5
15.5
15.1
15.3
15.1
15.3
15.4
15.4
15.3
15.1
15.4
15.5
15.2
15.4
15.2
15.7
15.3
15.1
18
R
∗
(Sun)
1.092
1.224
0.846
1.894
0.956
0.865
0.892
0.980
0.906
0.832
0.918
0.888
0.788
1.496
0.635
0.623
0.991
0.787
0.861
0.764
0.999
0.851
1.232
0.881
0.927
0.571
0.725
0.984
0.948
0.518
0.970
0.824
4.223
0.764
0.854
1.069
0.640
1.051
0.498
0.874
0.701
0.820
0.944
0.864
0.830
1.172
1.582
0.722
0.942
0.590
1.079
0.820
0.843
0.948
0.611
1.248
1.953
0.653
0.741
0.876
1.037
0.747
0.683
0.612
1.117
log( g )
(cgs)
4.396
4.444
4.597
4.559
4.475
4.549
4.551
4.466
4.472
4.586
4.539
4.567
4.660
4.598
4.952
4.751
4.475
4.524
4.592
4.629
4.450
4.593
4.704
4.521
4.517
4.661
4.726
4.855
4.485
4.963
4.511
4.605
4.427
4.581
4.843
4.409
4.804
4.412
5.009
4.533
4.582
4.571
4.432
4.563
4.622
4.596
4.367
4.700
4.643
4.927
4.409
4.624
4.829
4.479
4.605
4.411
4.762
4.569
4.725
4.715
4.534
4.634
4.765
5.058
4.528
T eff
(K)
5784
5646
5612
5469
5303
5236
5570
5448
4842
5316
5837
5858
5781
5614
4817
4817
5794
4497
5858
5033
5440
5651
5560
5059
4118
4097
5357
5236
5344
5386
6287
5458
5976
4735
5557
5655
5455
5491
5556
5136
4389
4997
4764
5401
5887
5779
5263
5345
5461
5502
5885
5667
5309
5256
4082
5733
5284
4112
5380
5638
5615
4950
5563
5176
5564
Period
(days)
4 .
190
16 .
330
27 .
807
80 .
868
10 .
355
10 .
526
4 .
583
3 .
762
8 .
204
41 .
408
5 .
975
18 .
649
3 .
951
23 .
655
11 .
763
7 .
954
4 .
859
12 .
719
3 .
340
3 .
896
22 .
368
34 .
845
38 .
037
4 .
641
7 .
919
1 .
028
8 .
103
6 .
366
10 .
319
6 .
770
1 .
627
19 .
620
9 .
030
2 .
990
4 .
783
20 .
507
39 .
749
5 .
715
13 .
610
3 .
168
119 .
021
16 .
086
206 .
789
32 .
629
4 .
959
4 .
498
41 .
441
8 .
354
4 .
281
1 .
506
61 .
263
38 .
374
3 .
729
40 .
420
2 .
243
6 .
575
7 .
275
19 .
266
12 .
393
3 .
690
4 .
431
26 .
396
14 .
180
8 .
472
12 .
612
Borucki et al.

The Astrophysical Journal
, 728:117 (20pp), 2011 February 20
KOI
937.01
938.01
940.01
942.01
944.01
945.01
948.01
949.01
951.01
955.01
956.01
917.01
918.01
920.01
922.01
923.01
924.01
927.01
931.01
934.01
935.01
903.01
906.01
908.01
910.01
911.01
912.01
914.01
916.01
871.01
872.01
873.01
874.01
875.01
876.01
877.01
877.02
878.01
882.01
883.01
887.01
889.01
890.01
891.01
892.01
895.01
896.01
896.02
900.01
901.01
902.01
KIC Number
9406990
9415172
9479273
9512687
9595686
9605514
9761882
9766437
9775938
9825625
9875711
8039892
8226994
8255887
8414716
8490993
8505670
8552202
8628973
8655354
8672910
8689031
8826878
8883593
8951215
9097120
9166862
9334289
9347899
7031517
7109675
7118364
7134976
7135852
7270230
7287995
7287995
7303253
7377033
7380537
7458762
757450
7585481
7663691
7678434
7767559
7825899
7825899
7938496
8013419
8018547
Kp
15.4
15.6
15.0
15.4
15.4
15.1
15.6
15.5
15.2
15.1
15.2
15.2
15.0
15.1
15.4
15.5
15.2
15.5
15.3
15.8
15.2
15.8
15.5
15.1
15.7
15.4
15.1
15.4
15.1
15.9
15.0
15.0
15.3
15.5
15.8
15.0
15.3
15.2
15.3
15.0
15.0
15.7
15.3
15.1
15.2
15.4
15.3
15.3
15.4
15.8
15.8
Planet Radius
R
J
0.20
0.24
0.54
0.23
0.37
0.23
0.19
0.27
0.58
0.23
0.50
0.29
0.99
0.16
0.24
0.32
0.36
1.46
1.15
0.32
0.40
0.95
0.23
1.11
0.26
0.18
0.22
0.23
0.36
0.68
0.24
0.21
0.41
1.20
1.05
0.22
1.52
0.91
0.65
0.14
0.17
0.34
0.84
0.34
0.23
1.24
0.38
0.28
0.45
0.26
0.83
Table A1
(Continued)
Epoch
BJD-2454900
109.623
109.969
105.617
104.894
108.568
107.051
105.339
109.938
169.808
109.572
104.701
102.571
107.857
103.244
121.860
106.717
103.766
104.546
108.731
108.645
106.433
107.135
104.446
104.720
104.006
104.804
102.731
104.312
106.356
139.583
123.502
104.624
107.901
106.306
121.982
103.679
106.008
113.013
112.422
119.684
105.226
102.977
103.624
104.898
103.952
114.227
106.808
103.694
103.101
108.345
102.992
T eff
(K)
5349
5342
5284
4997
5166
6059
5298
5733
4767
6121
4580
5681
5321
5330
5253
5669
5951
5957
5714
5733
6345
5620
5017
5391
5017
5820
4214
5479
5401
5650
5127
5470
5037
4198
5417
4211
4211
4749
5081
4674
5601
5101
5976
5851
5010
5436
5206
5206
5692
4213
4312 log( g )
(cgs)
4.685
4.582
4.629
4.734
4.495
4.594
4.946
4.703
4.255
4.510
4.334
4.478
4.544
4.859
4.456
4.596
4.529
4.557
4.776
4.655
4.696
4.776
4.558
4.245
4.863
4.783
4.608
4.965
4.480
5.051
4.592
4.784
4.561
4.865
4.865
4.566
4.566
4.281
4.572
4.821
4.525
4.480
4.561
4.593
4.604
4.372
4.629
4.629
4.335
4.716
4.616
Period
(days)
20 .
835
9 .
946
6 .
105
11 .
515
3 .
108
25 .
852
24 .
582
12 .
533
13 .
197
7 .
039
8 .
361
6 .
720
39 .
648
21 .
802
5 .
155
5 .
743
39 .
478
23 .
900
3 .
856
5 .
827
20 .
859
5 .
007
7 .
157
4 .
708
5 .
392
4 .
094
10 .
849
3 .
887
3 .
315
12 .
941
33 .
593
4 .
348
4 .
602
4 .
221
6 .
998
5 .
955
12 .
038
23 .
591
1 .
957
2 .
689
7 .
411
8 .
885
8 .
099
10 .
006
10 .
372
4 .
409
16 .
240
6 .
308
13 .
810
12 .
733
83 .
904
Note.
To provide accurate estimates of the epoch and period for observers, data taken after Q1 were used when available.
R
∗
(Sun)
0.725
0.838
1.337
0.663
0.921
1.072
0.706
0.909
1.205
1.141
1.051
0.982
1.038
0.608
0.976
1.024
0.935
0.903
1.011
0.861
1.018
1.256
0.836
1.288
0.876
0.758
0.637
1.126
0.959
0.477
0.810
0.789
0.706
0.780
0.589
0.678
0.678
1.160
0.826
0.642
0.923
0.933
1.104
1.244
0.788
1.195
0.821
0.821
1.172
0.359
0.940
Borucki et al.
are the orbital period, epoch, and an estimate of the size of the candidate.
REFERENCES
Agol, E., Steffen, J., Sari, R., & Clarkson, W. 2005, MNRAS , 359, 567
Almenara, J. M., et al. 2009, A&A , 506, 337
Batalha, N. M., et al. 2010, ApJ , 713, L103
Borucki, W. J., et al. 2009, Science , 325, 709
19
Borucki, W. J., et al. 2010, ApJ , 713, L126
Brown, T. M. 2003, ApJ , 593, L125
Brown, T. M., & Latham, D. W. 2008, arXiv: 0812.1305
Caldwell, D. A., et al. 2010, ApJ , 713, L92
Dunham, E. W., et al. 2010, ApJ , 713, L136
Gaudi, B. S. 2005, ApJ , 628, L73
Gautier, T. N., III. 2010, arXiv: 1001.0352
Gilliland, R. L., et al. 2010, ApJ , 713, L160
Holman, M. J., & Murray, N. W. 2005, Science , 307, 1288
Jenkins, J. M. 2002, ApJ , 575, 493

The Astrophysical Journal
, 728:117 (20pp), 2011 February 20
Jenkins, J. M., et al. 2010a, arXiv: 1001.0416
Jenkins, J. M., et al. 2010b, ApJ , 713, L120
Jenkins, J. M., et al. 2010c, ApJ , 713, L87
Jenkins, J. M., et al. 2010d, Proc. SPIE , 7740, 77400D-1
Johnson, J. J., Aller, K. M., Howard, A. W., & Crepp, J. R. 2010, arXiv:
1005.3084.v2
Koch, D. G., et al. 2010a, ApJ , 713, L131
Koch, D. G., et al. 2010b, ApJ , 713, L79
Latham, D. W., et al. 2010, ApJ , 713, L140
Prsa, A., et al. 2010, arXiv: 1006.2815
Santos, N. C., & Mayor, M. 2003, in JENAM 2002, The Unsolved Universe:
Challenges for the Future, ed. M. Monteiro (Dordrecht: Kluwer), 15
Borucki et al.
Steffen, J. H., et al. 2010, arXiv: 1006.2763
Tenenbaum, P., Bryson, S. T., Chandrasekaran, H., Li, J., Quintana, E., Twicken,
J. D., & Jenkins, J. M. 2010, Proc. SPIE , 7740, 0J-01
Torres, G., Konacki, M., Sasselov, D. D., & Jha, S. 2004, ApJ , 614,
979
Torres, G., Winn, J. N., & Holman, M. J. 2008, in IAU Symp. 253, Toward a
Homogeneous Set of Transiting Planet Parameters, ed. F. Pont, D. Sasselov,
& M. Holman (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press), 482
Winn, J. N. 2007, in ASP Conf. Ser. 366, Exoplanets and the
Rossiter–McLaughlin Effect. Transiting Extrasolar Planets Workshop, ed.
C. Afonso, D. Weldrake, & Th. Henning (San Francisco, CA: ASP), 170
Wu, H., et al. 2010, Proc. SPIE , 7740, 774019-1
20